CHAPTER 9
Ethics in Negotiation
The Titles
1. A Sample of Ethical Quandaries
2. What Do We Mean by “Ethics” and Why do
They Matter in Negotiation?
3. Four Approaches to Ethical Reasoning
4. What Questions of Ethical Conduct Arise in
Negotiation?
5. Why Use Deceptive Tactics? Motives and
Consequences.
6. What Factor Shape a Negotiator’s
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
7. How Can Negotiator Deal with the Other
Party’s Use of Deception?
8. Chapter Summary
1. A Sample of Ethical
Quandaries
• After reading the situations below,
consider several questions here:
• (1) Is it ethical to have said what you said
about having another offer?
• (2) Is this an ethical course of action? Would
you be likely to do it if you were the
entrepreneur?
• (3) Do any of the strategies raise ethical
concerns? Which ones? Why?
• (4) Is this ethical ? Would you be likely to do
this if you were this particular student?
• (5) Is this ethical ? Would you be likely to do
this if you were this customer?
2.What Do We Mean by “Ethics” and
Why Do They Matter in Negotiation?
-1
• Ethics Defined
It is broadly social standards for what is right
or wrong in a particular situation, or process for
setting those standards. They differ from morals,
which are individual and personal beliefs about
what is right and wrong. Ethics grow out of
particular philosophies, which purport to define the
nature of the world I which we live, and prescribe
rules for living together.
Our goal is to distinguish among different
criteria, or standards, for judging and evaluating a
negotiator’s actions, particularly when questions of
ethics may be involved.
2.What Do We Mean by “Ethics” and
Why Do They Matter in Negotiation?
-2
• Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation
The example shows that the approach to ethical
reasoning you favor affects the kind of ethical
judgment you make, and the consequent behavior
you choose, in a situation that has an ethical
dimension to it .
• Ethics versus Prudence versus Practically versus
Legality
On the one hand, negotiators see some tactics
as marginal—defined in shades and degrees rather
than in absolutes. On the other hand, negotiators
show marked agreement that certain tactics are
clearly unethical.
Although it maybe difficult to tell a negotiator
Figure 9.1
Analytical Process for the Resolution of Moral
Problems
Understand all
Moral standards
Determine the
Economic outcomes
Define complete
Moral problem
Recognize all
moral impacts：
Benefits to some
Harm to others
Rights exercise
Rights denied
Consider the
Legal requirements
Evaluate the
ethical duties
Process
Convincing
Moral
solution
3. Four Approaches to Ethical
Reasoning -1
• Those who write about business ethics
tend to approach the subject from the
perspectives of major philosophical
theories (see table 9.1).
• Drawing on this literature, we will now take
a closer look at the four ethical standards
for making decisions in negotiation that we
introduced above: End-Result Ethics, Duty
Ethics, Social Contract Ethics, and
Personalistic Ethics.
3.1 End-Result Ethics
• Many of the ethically questionable incidents
in business that upset the public involve
people who argue that the ends justify the
means—that is, who deem it acceptable to
break a rule or violate a procedure in the
service of some greater good for the
individual, the organization, or even society
at large.
• In the negotiation context, when negotiators
have noble objectives to attain for
themselves or their constituencies, they will
argue that they can use whatever strategies
3.2 Duty Ethics
• Duty ethics emphasize that individual ought to
commit themselves to a series of moral rules or
standards and make decisions based on those
principles.
• When addressing means—ends questions in
competition and negotiation, observers usually
focus the most attention on the question of
what strategies and tactics may be seen as
appropriate to achieve certain ends.
• Clearly, deontology has its critics as well. Who
sets the standards and make the rules? What
are rules that apply in all circumstances?
3.3 Social Contract Ethics
• Social contract ethics argue that societies,
organizations, and cultures determine what is
ethically appropriate and acceptable for
themselves and then indoctrinate new members as
they are socialized into fabric of the community.
• Social contract ethics focus on what individuals
owe to their community and what they can or
should expect in return.
• As applied to negotiation, Social contract ethics
would prescribe which behaviors are appropriate
in a negotiation context in terms of what people
owe one another.
3.4 Personalistic Ethics
• As fourth standards of ethics is that, rather
than attempting to determine what is ethical
based on ends, duties, or the social norms of a
community, people should simply consult their
own conscience.
• The very nature of human existence leads
individuals to develop a personal conscience,
an internal sense of what is right and what one
ought to do.
• Applied to negotiation, personalistic ethics
maintain that everyone ought to decide for
themselves what is right based on their
3.5 Summary
• In this section, we have reviewed four
major approaches to ethical reasoning.
Negotiators may use each of these
approaches to evaluate appropriate
strategies and tactic.
• We will next explore some of factors that
tend to influence, if not dictate, how
negotiators are disposed to deal with
ethical questions.
4. What Questions of Ethical
Conduct Arise in Negotiation
• In this section, we will discuss negotiation
tactics that bring issues of ethically in to
play.
• We will first discuss what we mean by
tactics that are “Ethically Ambiguous”, and
we will link negotiator ethics to the
fundamental issue of truth telling. Then
describe the research that has sought to
identify and classify such tactics and
analyze people’s attitudes toward their use.
And then also distinguish between active
4.1 Ethically Ambiguous Tactics:
It’s (Mostly) All About The Truth
• Most of the ethics issues in negotiation are
concerned with standards of truth telling—how
honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator
should be. The attention here is more on what
negotiators say or what they will do than on what
they actually do.
• Bluffing, exaggeration, and concealment or
manipulation of information are legitimate ways
for both individuals and corporations to
maximize their self-interest.
• As we pointed out when we discussed
interdependence, negotiation is based on
information dependence—the exchange of
information regarding the true preferences and
4.2 Identify Ethically Ambiguous
Tactics and Attitudes toward Their
Use-1
• What Ethically Ambiguous Tactics Are
There?
See those six categories listed in Table
9.2, it is interesting to note that two of
those are viewed as generally appropriate
and likely to be used. And the other four,
are generally seen as inappropriate an
unethical in negotiation.
• Does Tolerance for Ethically Ambiguous
Tactics Lead to Their Actual Use?
4.2 Identify Ethically Ambiguous
Tactics and Attitudes toward Their
Use-2
• Is It All Right to Use Ethically Ambiguous Tactics?
The studies summarized here indicate that there are
tacitly agreed-on rules of game in negotiation. In these
rules, some minor forms of untruths maybe seen as
ethically acceptable and within the rules.
• Deception by Omission versus Commission
The use of deceptive tactics can be active or
passive.
The researchers discovered that negotiators used two
forms of deception in misrepresenting the commonvalue issue: misrepresentation by omission and
misrepresentation by commission
• The Decision to Use Ethically Ambiguous
Tactics: A Model
The Decision to Use Ethically
Ambiguous Tactics: A Model
Figure 9.2 A Simple Model of Ethical Decision
Making
Intentions and
Motives for Using
Deceptive Tactics
Influence
Situation
Identification of
Range of
Influence tactics
Use
Deceptive
Tactics
Yes
Selection and
Use of Deceptive
Tactic (s)
No
Explanation
And
Justifications
Consequences:
1.Impact of tactic:
Does it work?
2.Self-evaluation
3.Feedback and
Reaction From
other Negotiator,
Constituency, and
Audiences
5. Why Use Deceptive Tactics?
Motives and Consequences
In the preceding pages we
discussed at length the nature of ethics
and the kinds of tactics in negotiation
that might be regarded as ethically
ambiguous. Now we turn to a discussion
of why such tactics are tempting and
what the consequences are of
succumbing to that temptation.
5.1 The Power Motive
• Information has power because
negotiation is intended to be a rational
activity involving the exchange of
information and the persuasive use of
that information.
• In fact, it has been demonstrated that
individuals are more willing to use
deceptive tactics when the other party is
perceived to be uniformed or
unknowledgable about the situation
under negotiation; particularly when the
5.2 Other Motives to Behave
Unethically
• The motivation of a negotiator can clearly
affect his or her tendency to use
deceptive tactics. (See Box 9.2 for a
discussion of motives of cheaters in
running )
• But the impact of motives may be more
complex. Differences in the negotiators’
own motivational orientation—cooperative
versus competitive--didn’t cause
differences in their view of the
appropriateness of using the tactics, but
the negotiators’ perception of other’s
5.3 The Consequences of
Unethical Conduct
• A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic
will experience consequences that may be
positive or negative, based on three aspects of
the situation:
• (1) Effectiveness. Clearly, a tactic’s effectiveness will
have some impact on whether it is more or less likely
to be used in the future.
• (2) Reactions of Others. Depending on whether these
parties recognize the tactic and whether they
evaluate it as proper or improper to use, the
negotiator may receive a grate deal of feedback.
• (3) Reactions of Self. Under some conditions, a
negotiator may feel some discomfort, stress, guilt, or
•
5.4 Explanations and
Justifications
The primary purpose of these explanations and
justifications is to rationalize, explain, or excuse the
behavior—to verbalize some good, legitimate reason
why this tactic was necessary.
• Rationalizations adapted from Bok and her treatise on
lying:
(1)The tactic was unavoidable.
(2)The tactic was harmless.
(3)The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences.
(4)The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is
altruisucally motivated.
(5)“They had it coming”，or “They deserve it,” or “I’m just
getting my due”.
(6)“They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first”
(7)“He started it”.
(8)The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation.
6. What Factor Shape a
Negotiator’s Predisposition to Use
Unethical Tactics
Figure 9.3 A more complex model of decision
making
Individual Differences
Demographic Factors
Personality
Characteristics
Moral Development
Influence
Situation
Intentions and
Motives for Using
Deceptive Tactics
Identification of
Range of
Influence tactics
Contextual
Influences
Use
Deceptive
Tactics
Yes
Selection and
Use of Deceptive
Tactic (s)
No
Explanation
And
Justifications
Consequences:
1.Impact of tactic:
Does it work?
2.Self-evaluation
3.Feedback and
Reaction From
other Negotiator,
Constituency, and
Audiences
6.1 Demographic Factors -1
• Sex
A number of studies show that women tend to
make more ethically rigorous judgment than men.
Men were more likely to use some unethical
judgments than women.
Differences may exist in the way that man and
women are perceived as ethical decision makers.
Overall, female actors were perceived to be
formalistic in their decision, and males perceived to
be more utilitarian.
• Age and Experience
Older individuals were less likely than younger
ones to see marginally ethical tactics as appropriate.
Individuals with more work experience were less
likely to use unethical tactics.
6.1 Demographic Factors-2
• Nationality and Culture
It is apparent that there are cultural
differences in attitudes toward ethically
ambiguous tactics in negotiation, although there
are not enough research findings to create a
coherent overall picture.
And Box 9.3 tells the complications involved in
understanding ethics in cross-cultural negotiation.
• Professional Orientation
The finding of related researches are actually
more about which role a person plays—defenders
versus challenger of the status quo—than about
the attorney role that they play.
6.2 Personality Differences
• Competitiveness versus Cooperativeness
• Machiavellianism
A number of studies have shown that individuals
who are strongly Machiavellian are more willing and
able to tell a lie without feeling anxious about it, and
more persuasive and effective in their lies.
• Locus of Control
Studies have generally predicted that high in
internal control are more likely to do what they think
is right and to feel that they had more control over
producing the outcomes they wanted to achieve in
a situation in which there were temptations to be
6.3 Moral Development and
Personal Values
• Kohlberg proposed that an individual’s
moral and ethical judgments are a
consequence of achieving a particular
developmental level or stage of moral
growth. Kohlberg proposed six stages of
moral development, grouped into three
levels.
• The mixed findings are reasonably
consistent with the growing literature that
attempts to measure individual values and
morality and related them to ethical
6.4 Contextual Influences on
Unethical Conduct
• Past Experience
• Role of Incentives
• Relationship between the Negotiator and the
Other Party
• Relative Power between the Negotiators
• Mode of Communication
• Acting as an Agent versus Representing
Your Own Views
• Group and Organizational Norms and
7. How Can Negotiator Deal with
the Other Party’s Use of
Deception
• Ask Probing Questions
Asking questions can revel a great deal of
information, some of which the negotiator may
intentionally leave undisclosed.
• Force the Other Party to Lie or Back Off
(1) “Call” the Tactic
(2) Discuss What You See and Offer to Help
the Other Party Change to More Honest
Behaviors
(3) Respond in Kind
(4) Ignore the Tactic
8. Chapter Summary
• In this chapter, we have discussed factors that
negotiators consider when they decide whether
particular tactics are deceptive and unethical.
• We began by drawing on a set of hypothetical
scenarios to discuss how ethical questions are
inherent in the process of negotiation. Then
presented four fundamental approaches to
ethical reasoning and showed how each might
be used to make decisions about what is
ethically appropriate.
• We analyzed the motives for and
consequences of engaging in unethical